Human Rights Tribunal orders Montrealer to pay $8,000 in damages to panhandler because of email

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Elendil_s_Heir

I’m not convinced the complainant’s rights have been infringed. Had she not been shown the letter by the booze store manager, she would not have been aware of it at all. Had the letter not formed the heart of the tribunal’s case, the general public would not have been aware of it. For what does it profit a beggar to lose her anonymity but protect her “dignity”? $8000, I guess.

Dignity is in the eye of the beholder. I agree that everyone should be presumed to have at least some, but a beggar is, by her voluntary conduct, showing that she has very little, if any.

In Canada, the right is not to have one’s reputation protected, but rather the right to be protected from one’s reputation.

[fluiddruid]

Updated thread title from “Human rights commission…” to “Human Rights Tribunal…”.

[elbows]

Hate speech. Pretty clearly to me. I think the guy who got the letter did the right thing, and the guy who wrote it deserved consequences for doing so. He is an employee of the government, and that does make a difference.

He’s not being fired. $8,000 seems fair to me.

(I like the, " don’t be a jerk" interpretation, mentioned up thread! )

[Northern_Piper]

@Elendil_s_Heir

I’m not convinced the complainant’s rights have been infringed. Had she not been shown the letter by the booze store manager, she would not have been aware of it at all. Had the letter not formed the heart of the tribunal’s case, the general public wouldn’t have known about it. For what does it profit a beggar to lose her anonymity but protect her “dignity”? $8000, I guess…

Again, the law of defamation provides some guidance. You can be libelled without knowing about it.

If A writes a letter to B, saying that C is a liar and a thief and abuses puppies on the weekend, that could cause serious harm to C’s reputation. If C finds out about it, C may well have a libel action against A.

It’s instructive that s. 4 links dignity and reputation. Together in the same provision. Principles of statutory interpretation suggest they should be considered as similar, and enforced similarly.

[Stratocaster]

@Northern_Piper

Do you feel the same way about libel and slander laws? Do you consider them an infringement on freedom of speech?

Don’t libel and slander guard against something more-or-less objectively false being advanced as fact? I think that’s an important distinction from the particulars of this case. The letter seems like a hyperbolic rant, and I think the effort to turn it into a real threat requires more energy and imagination than I can muster.

I’ll defer to the experts on the best way to understand the legal system there. I’ll defer, of course, to Canadians who say they prefer such a system if this is actually working as intended. But IMO, this is a ridiculous decision and an affront to personal liberty. Such a government power is overbearing and, frankly, frightening.

[Zebra]

Just a theory but…

The manager could have gone to the woman and said

Please go elsewhere, I’m getting complaints.
Who complains?
I get emails.
Show me these emails.
OK I will.

Shows her the letter in an attempt to get her to go elsewhere or change her behavior and then she is able to sue the sender.

[BigT]

@Xema

And when it comes to human rights, surely freedom of speech is as nothing compared to the preservation of everyone’s dignity.

Well, yes. At least, freedom of speech as used to mean saying threatening and disturbing things about someone (and an entire class of someones). Freedom of speech is not a just thing in and of itself but merely a method to get a justice, and there are many cases where absolute freedom of speech does not provide justice.

This idea that freedom of speech is an absolute good is a perversion of its intent, and a disheartening look at how many people pervert morality so they can have the rights to be complete jerks without consequences.

This guy is an extreme, potentially homicidal bigot; he’s shown a distinct lack of restraint and good judgement by sending that letter at all. He’s dangerous, and the store owner was right to warn the lady, and the lady is right to using the legal system to try and keep this guy from being so dangerous. If this guy wasn’t stopped now, I do fear he would have gotten worse. Yeah, he exaggerated, but his exaggerations just mean that lesser thoughts weren’t considered bad enough for him.

I do in fact think he might have physically harmed this woman. He’s already shown an inability to control his temper once and a heart of hatred. Giving him freedom of speech in this instance is not just.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Some other views on the topic: Freedom Of Speech Quotes (466 quotes)